Case Law (1)

In Cordcon Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Valerian Anthony Diago & Anr.

2015 (2) CPR 517 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-

"10. .......Thus, it becomes clear that almost after about 9 months he applied for certified
copy of the impugned order inspite of having knowledge of the impugned order. Section
12 (2) of Limitation Act runs as under:

// 5 // "(2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave
to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which judgment
complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the
decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be
excluded.

Thus, limitation runs from the date of pronouncement/knowledge and is such

circumstances limitation for filing appeal started from 10.04.2012 and period taken in
obtaining certified copy is to be excluded for the purpose of calculation of condonation
of delay. Apparently, appellant applied for certified copy on 4.01.2013 and he received
copy on the same day; hence, only one day for getting certified copy of the impugned
order is to be excluded for computation of limitation for filing appeal.

11. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that period of limitation is to be
calculated from the date of receiving free copy as provided under Regulation 21 of the
C.P. Regulations, 2005. This argument is devoid of force because this provision only
directs to the Consumer Fora to give parties free of cost copy of the order, but

it nowhere specifies that limitation will run from the date of receipt of free copy.
If a party does not receive free copy at all, it cannot be held that limitation will
not run against him till he receives certified copy. Limitation will run from the
date he obtains knowledge of the order passed by Consumer Fora and only
period taken in obtaining certified copy will be excluded. Appellant should have
applied for certified copy of order on 10.04.2012, when judgment was
pronounced in his presence and as he did not apply for certified copy uptill
4.1.2013, period from 11.4.2012 to 3.1.2013 cannot be excluded from period of
limitation provided for filing appeal."
 Case Law (2)

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,
IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;

"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for
condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation
has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and
revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the
consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated
petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras.

Case Law (3)

The law also requires that the Applicant should also explain the delay of each and every
day by giving reasonable explanation for such delay. That the condonation of delay is
not a matter of right has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited,

AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown
a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The
proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If
sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for
condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then
the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This
aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is
at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but
the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause
is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as
relevant."
Case Law (4)

Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari,

I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has so held.

"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing
the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which
needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable
diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."

Case Law (5)

The Hon'ble Court in the matter of "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority,

(2011) 14 SCC 578," has held as under:

"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for
condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation
has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and
revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the
consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated
petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora."

Case Law (6)

In Union of India v. Visveswarava Iron and Steel Ltd,

A special leave petition was filed by the Union of India after delay of one year of the
receipt of the certified copy of the impugned judgment. The delay was due to slow
action by different departments through which the certified copy of the judgment was
routed. One year and nine months after the filing of the application for condonation of
delay, another application was moved seeking time for filing a supplementary affidavit
explaining the delay. The Court refused to condone the delay.
Case Law (7)

In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mrs Katiji, the Supreme Court held,

"sufficient cause" as employed by the legislature under Section 5 of the Indian

Limitation Act would apply to special leave petitions as well. The Court held that a
liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay as it was realized that:

(1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late

(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the
very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is
condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after
hearing the parties.

(3) The requirement that "every day's delay must be explained" does hour's delay, every
second's delay? The doctrine must be applied not mean that a pedantic approach
should be made. Why not every in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner

(4) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other,
the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim
to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

(5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of

culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides, A litigant does not stand to benefit by
resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

(6) The judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on
technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do
so.